Attraction of Bees to Native and Introduced Willows (Salix spp.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction Line 45 such as nesting sites, food and stopover sites needs revise to nesting, food, and stopover sites.
Line 143 PVC please make it clear. Write the full form of PVC. Please follow the pattern for all abbreviation appeared first time in text.
Why the authors collect the specimens during the temperature above 12 0C.
The Fig 2-line bar seems not attractive. I suggest you to change the format of the figure. Like to change the line to smooth.
Please check all the references careful in text as I observed that the references not included in text.
Revise the paper for grammatical mistakes there are some minor errors should need to remove.
Check all the species names included in text as I see some are not in italic form, Keep the same format.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors compared the attractiveness to bees of three native and three introduced species or cultivars of willow. They collected and identified over 2,400 bees visiting the willows using colored bowl traps over a six-week period. The study found no significant differences in the number of pollinators collected from either native or introduced willows during the progressive willow flowering from mid-March to May over two years. Similarly, during the concurrent flowering of two native and two introduced willow taxa, there were no significant differences in the number of pollinators associated with either group. These findings suggest that both native and introduced willows offer similar benefits of floral resources for pollinators and can be used interchangeably to meet bioenergy goals.
These findings have management implications for the support of pollinators and enhancement of overall biodiversity. Both native and introduced willows can be integrated into various agricultural and managed landscapes to provide a wide range of ecosystem services. The phenological differences recorded during this study support the diversification of willows to provide a network of floral resources and a wide foraging window for pollinators throughout the season. This approach could increase fruit production via increased pollination and provide essential nutrient resources for pollinators prior to the mass flowering of agricultural crops. Also, various habitat configurations can be used for willow plantings to maximize overall benefit across landscapes, including windbreaks and snow fences, riparian buffers, and vegetation filters to create additional pollinator habitats. However, in order to properly justify these implications, it is necessary to discuss the nutritional value of the forage provided by willows in the context of balancing the diet of wild bees. I offer the following comments to help introduce the above context into the manuscript, strengthen it and make it ready for publication.
Title and abstract
Please replace 'pollinators' with 'bees' in the title and abstract. Wild bees were the subject of the study.
Introduction
A short paragraph describing the nutritional value of the forage provided by willows for bees is needed in the introduction. In this paragraph, the authors should also refer to how the nutritional quality of the food affects the functioning of individuals, populations and communities of wild bees.
Lines 67 – 75
An important piece of information can be added here: the pollen produced by willows appears to be well balanced in terms of nutrients, which is reflected in the health and condition of the bees. See e.g. these studies:
Day, S., Beyer, R., Mercer, A. & Ogden, S. (1990). The Nutrient Composition of Honeybee-Collected Pollen in Otago, New Zealand. J. Apic. Res., 29, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.1990.11101210
Filipiak, Z.M., Denisow, B., Stawiarz, E. & Filipiak, M. (2022). Unravelling the dependence of a wild bee on floral diversity and composition using a feeding experiment. Sci. Total Environ., 820, 153326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153326
Prđun, S., Svečnjak, L., Valentić, M., Marijanović, Z. & Jerković, I. (2021). Characterization of Bee Pollen: Physico-Chemical Properties, Headspace Composition and FTIR Spectral Profiles. Foods, 10, 2103. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092103
Materials and methods
This section is written in a clear and concise manner and contains all the information that is necessary to understand the way in which the authors have carried out the study. I have nothing to add or comment on.
Results and discussion
This part needs to be developed (more discussion is needed). It would be good to refer to the nutritional needs of bees in the discussion and discuss the results obtained in the context of the literature on the nutritional needs of bees and the balance of their larval and adult diets. Is the food provided by willows nutritionally balanced? Do willows alone provide wild bees with all the necessary nutrients in the right proportions, or should willow plantations be enriched with other plant species to provide a balanced diet for bees? A brief discussion of these and similar questions will strengthen the message of the manuscript and improve its impact.
I do not have any comments on the quality of the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
After reading and analyzing your manuscript, In general, this work is interesting, besides I think it has scientific quality. I give you the following remarks:
· The title does not accurately reflect the purpose of the experience, please change it.
· please add an image of the implantation area before and after.
· please add an image of the pan traps method.
· The article was well written on the structural side, at the level of English language well, the Abstract, the introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion and conclusions part are clear.
· Is it possible to add references in each paragraph of the results and discussion part, comparative study:
3.3. Total pollinator number of pollinators associated with native and introduced willows.
3.4. Total number of pollinators associated with each willow taxa.
3.6. Overlapping blooming periods
· A jump in the numbering of the subtitles in the part Results and Discussionn
3.4. Total number of pollinators associated with each willow taxa.
3.6. Overlapping blooming periods
bests regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editor in Chief of forests journal (Genetics and Molecular Biology section)
Hi and have a good day
I studied the article entitled” Value of native and introduced willows (Salix L.) in attracting pollinators” written by Kuzovkina et al. The introduction, material and methods, results, and discussion show the investigation was achieved in a good manner and this research has some novelty esp. about sustainable agriculture. However, I think minor corrections are necessary to improve the quality of this article. So I suggest revision for this article in the result, discussion, and another part of MS as follows:
Title of article
In the title of the article, the authors wrote the name of the willow's genus (Salix L.). I think it is better to write Salix spp. or another format.
Abstract part:
Line 9-11: need to rewrite again the problem statement.
Introduction part:
‾ Line 37: aboveground is not better to write above-ground.
‾ Line 42-66: some sentences are repeated in another part of the MS. Please summarize three paragraphs in two paragraphs here.
‾ Material and methods:
‾ Line 104: design is better to write experimental design.
‾ Line 111: wherein=====where in
‾ Line 105-112: please write the number of replication for treatments in one place in this paragraph.
‾ Table 1: please rotate the table so that taxon names were located on the left side of the table and common names and other parameters are above the table. In this model perception of table for article readers will be better.
‾ Do the result of the present study affect if the bowls trap was chosen the red color? Why red color was not chosen?
‾ Figure 2: Please write Y axis unit in this picture. Why there is space in the X axis among dates such as 4.19 then 5.12 or 3.27 then 4.1 and so on?
‾ Is it possible to incorporate tables 2 & 3 or rewrite beside together.
‾ Line 189: Figure 3 is not related to these line here? Please check again it.
Results part
‾ In one table please write the botanic characteristics of six willows such as plant height, biomass, flowering date, resistance to biotic and abiotic stress and other parameters if it is possible for researchers.
‾ Table 4: Please write the number of bowls trap within brackets above this table.
‾ In some table: if it is possible for the authors, please write the class of treatments above columns instead of the Error bar esp. in figures 7, 8, 9, and 10.
‾ Line 272: which of them is true? p>0.05 or p<0.05? Please control all parts of the article.
‾ The number of insects is a quantitative trait. I do not know why the authors analyzed the data by binomial method, while ANOVA could be used instead of them.
‾ Figure 5 and 6: It seems Error bar lines are not drawn true in these picture. Please check them again. And please explain to me how you drew and calculated the error bar.
‾ In conclusion: please delete paragraph three and only the important sentences were added to paragraphs 1 and 2.
Best wishes
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your useful comments. The thoroughness of your review is greatly appreciated. It helped to significantly improve this manuscript.
Please be advised that there were four reviews of this manuscript, and some reviewers at times had slightly different opinions regarding the manuscript improvement. While we tried to address all issues it may still be some minor discrepancies between some changes, which we hope you will accept.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have considered the reviewers' comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. I am satisfied with the current version of the manuscript.
